Clarify The Sin

[Buzzard]

That's the point of the article in the OP. The church, through its handbook, is saying that "homosexual behavior" is a sin. It separates that sin our independent of adultery & fornication. Obviously sexual relations among two people of the same gender who are not married is a sin. But there does not seem to be a consensus on this thread about other "homosexual behavior" such as two single males holding hands on a date or two unmarried females kissing.

Well, doing those things will get you kicked out of BYU. Not that that means the church has exactly the same standards everywhere, but it's a good start.

[CV75]

Not even remotely comparable.

While that's not breaking the law of chastity ("no sexual relations other than your spouse"), it's breaking other promises of loyalty to the person you're married to. It's an act of betrayal of trust and fidelity.

How do you know what is the participant's hearts, whether good or evil? Again, I see a double standard in the defense of gay couples doing the same thing, where it is OK for them but not for others under any circumsatnce.

The context of the behavior and the intent of the heart have a lot to do with whether these things are sins. It doesn't help anyone to give carte blanche to gay couples and condemn the married couples.

[Ahab]

Again, you are referring to the creation of a body. There is nothing to suggest that Adam & Eve having sexual relations prior to the fall would have organized an intelligence into a spirit. You are just speculating.

I think your paradigm is causing you to miss the mark. An intelligence is a kind of being, and when we perpetuate our speccies, our kind of intelligence, we are creating another individual of intelligence. Or in other words, it is the intelligence inherent in a kind of being that is being perpetuated in the offspring, so when two persons of intelligence perpetuate their species, through sexual relations in our case, another person of intelligence is the result.

And of course if you'd like to just call this speculation, again, you can do that.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Ahab

[Ahab]

It's our own scriptures that teach me this:

The whole point of the Garden is as a symbol of our innocent, childlike state. That we embraced the opportunity to enter the "lone and dreary" one. We can never turn to God and say "why did you make me do this" because each of us, including Adam & Eve chose it.

That's why in the temple they represent us. Because each of us chose this and rejected the limitations of pre-mortal paradise. Adam & Eve were still in a pre mortal existence in the garden. There was no plan B because God had designed (and we had embraced) plan A.

I understand all of that. I'm simply saying that if Adam and Eve had chosen to not partake of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and yet still had sexual relations with each other, the eggs in Eve's womb would have been fertilized by Adam's semen and a child would have been the result... if not in every case, in at least some cases when they had sexual relations with each other. Adam and Eve were still a man and woman before they fell, don't cha know, and certain things happen when a man and woman have sexual relations with each other.

[LordUther]

How do you know what is the participant's hearts, whether good or evil? Again, I see a double standard in the defense of gay couples doing the same thing, where it is OK for them but not for others under any circumsatnce.

The context of the behavior and the intent of the heart have a lot to do with whether these things are sins. It doesn't help anyone to give carte blanche to gay couples and condemn the married couples.

Oh please there's a massive difference between 2 single people holding hands & finding comfort in each other than 2 people who have made commitments to other people doing the same thing. Here's my suggestion why don't you, if you're married/seeing someone, go find someone else kiss & hold their hand & then go tell your significant other it was innocent & that she doesn't know what's in your heart. I find this pharisaical line that you're taking an insult to others intelligence and does nothing to help your point.

I've actually been struggling to answer this question myself and so reading the thoughts and ideas in this thread are very thought provoking. I think the stance that I'm coming to is that no I don't believe that if I had a boyfriend that was a celibate relationship would be committing a sin, according to the letter of the law but that it would be bending the spirit of the law to almost breaking point. I believe that having such a relationship would be playing so near to the edge that slipping and falling over would be too much of a danger, and a risk not worth taking. While not a sin I think that it would end up in pain & hurt for both sides further down the road, so don't think it would be a course that I would take.

Edited July 18, 2013 by LordUther

[Tacenda]

removed

Edited July 18, 2013 by Tacenda

[Erin15]

That's the point of the article in the OP. The church, through its handbook, is saying that "homosexual behavior" is a sin. It separates that sin our independent of adultery & fornication. Obviously sexual relations among two people of the same gender who are not married is a sin. But there does not seem to be a consensus on this thread about other "homosexual behavior" such as two single males holding hands on a date or two unmarried females kissing.

It seems to me that this entire debate misses the point of discipleship entirely. Following Jesus Christ is not about quantifying how close you can get to the edge of the cliff within falling over, but rather, seeing how high you can climb with faith, obedience, and love.

While I cannot speak for others, I know in my heart that if I was challenged with homosexual feelings, I would naturally and willingly avoid any situation where I would be tempted to sin. That would include associating with other people facing the same challenge, and I would certainly never put myself in a situation where I would be holding hands or dating one. That would be reckless.

Like the faithful of the past, I would remove myself from situations where I would be tempted.

This behavior would come from my love of the Savior and my desire to follow him.

[bluebell]

I agree with your points 1 & 2. But I am also open to the possibility that the Lord could reveal that a gay couple could be sealed together. If that were to happen, I don't see why they couldn't also be promised eternal increase as well.

The evidence to support my assertion is that we are taught that we are eternal beings. We existed as intelligences prior to Heavenly Father organizing us into spirits. I see no evidence in scripture that shows this process needs to mimic the process for creating physical bodies the way we create them on earth.

I agree that the scriptures does not say that the process to create spirit children has to mimic the process on earth, however, the scriptures DO say that only a man and a woman sealed together will have the opportunity to be exalted and therefore create spirit children (whatever the process is).

[bluebell]

Toggle button works great for me. It's a little button on the top left. It's been strange how sometimes everything is underlined, or slanted or sometimes bolded. But using that button has done the trick!

It works!!

Thanks Cal and Tacenda-that has really been driving me crazy!

Whoo hoo!

[rockpond]

I think your paradigm is causing you to miss the mark. An intelligence is a kind of being, and when we perpetuate our speccies, our kind of intelligence, we are creating another individual of intelligence. Or in other words, it is the intelligence inherent in a kind of being that is being perpetuated in the offspring, so when two persons of intelligence perpetuate their species, through sexual relations in our case, another person of intelligence is the result.

And of course if you'd like to just call this speculation, again, you can do that.

Yeah, I think that we are both speculating, don't you? Neither of us is able to provide canonical references for what we are saying. We're both trying to extrapolate based on the little that we do know on this matter.

My understanding from Mormon theology has always been that intelligences are eternal and are used to create spirits. Maybe that spirit child is created through two immortal/perfect beings having something akin to sexual relations and then it is inhabited by an eternal intelligence. Maybe that is what is meant by "organizing intelligences". Or maybe that's not the case. Neither of us really knows.

Edited July 18, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

I agree that the scriptures does not say that the process to create spirit children has to mimic the process on earth, however, the scriptures DO say that only a man and a woman sealed together will have the opportunity to be exalted and therefore create spirit children (whatever the process is).

Could you provide the reference that you are thinking of?

[rockpond]

It seems to me that this entire debate misses the point of discipleship entirely. Following Jesus Christ is not about quantifying how close you can get to the edge of the cliff within falling over, but rather, seeing how high you can climb with faith, obedience, and love.

While I cannot speak for others, I know in my heart that if I was challenged with homosexual feelings, I would naturally and willingly avoid any situation where I would be tempted to sin. That would include associating with other people facing the same challenge, and I would certainly never put myself in a situation where I would be holding hands or dating one. That would be reckless.

Like the faithful of the past, I would remove myself from situations where I would be tempted.

This behavior would come from my love of the Savior and my desire to follow him.

While that is certainly a beautiful sentiment I don't think that we can really put ourselves into the heart of someone who is homosexual. I don't think it's possible to truly contemplate how you might feel when faced with a life a celibacy and loneliness.

[Ahab]

Yeah, I think that we are both speculating, don't you? Neither of us is able to provide canonical references for what we are saying. We're both trying to extrapolate based on the little that we do know on this matter.

My understanding from Mormon theology has always been that intelligences are eternal and are used to create spirits. Maybe that spirit child is created through two immortal/perfect beings having something akin to sexual relations and then it is inhabited by an eternal intelligence. Maybe that is what is meant by "organizing intelligences". Or maybe that's not the case. Neither of us really knows.

I think I know what you mean and that just doesn't feel right. It's a weird idea, and I for one can't understand why anyone would entertain that idea and think it is true. You do get feelings to tell you when something is right, don't you? And you're seriously telling me that feels right to you to think of intelligence in that way? An intelligence is a kind of being, and each kind of being has a way of perpetuating itself. Now ask for help understanding what kind of being we are, and have always been. Next thing you're going to tell me is that you believe in evolution, I'll bet.

[Ahab]

While that is certainly a beautiful sentiment I don't think that we can really put ourselves into the heart of someone who is homosexual. I don't think it's possible to truly contemplate how you might feel when faced with a life a celibacy and loneliness.

Every person is homosexual, because each of us is only one sex, either male or female. What you're talking about is whether or not a person has a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, like whether or not they can imagine what it would feel like and whether or not they can imagine it feeling good to be with someone of the same sex to have sexual relations with that person. I can entertain feelings like that, and I have even tried it before, and while it felt good in a physical way to me I now know that it wasn't a good thing for me to be doing, and it wouldn't be a good thing for me to do now, or for anyone else to do for that matter. Certain things are right or wrong, regardless of whether or not we enjoy doing that thing, and someone who has sexual relations with someone of the same sex is doing a "bad" thing even if they like it and it feels good to them.

Some people just have a difficult time discerning whether something is good or evil, or in other words, right or wrong. That's why we need to sometimes spell it out for people who have trouble telling when something isn't good for them. And it really doesn't matter if someone like to do something that isn't good for them, because it's still not good for them even if they like doing that thing.

[rockpond]

I think I know what you mean and that just doesn't feel right. It's a weird idea, and I for one can't understand why anyone would entertain that idea and think it is true. You do get feelings to tell you when something is right, don't you? And you're seriously telling me that feels right to you to think of intelligence in that way?

Yes, it does feel right.

[rockpond]

Every person is homosexual, because each of us is only one sex, either male or female. What you're talking about is whether or not a person has a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, like whether or not they can imagine what it would feel like and whether or not they can imagine it feeling good to be with someone of the same sex to have sexual relations with that person. I can entertain feelings like that, and I have even tried it before, and while it felt good in a physical way to me I now know that it wasn't a good thing for me to be doing, and it wouldn't be a good thing for me to do now, or for anyone else to do for that matter. Certain things are right or wrong, regardless of whether or not we enjoy doing that thing, and someone who has sexual relations with someone of the same sex is doing a "bad" thing even if they like it and it feels good to them.

Some people just have a difficult time discerning whether something is good or evil, or in other words, right or wrong. That's why we need to sometimes spell it out for people who have trouble telling when something isn't good for them. And it really doesn't matter if someone like to do something that isn't good for them, because it's still not good for them even if they like doing that thing.

Sexual orientation is about far more than the desire for sexual relations. If you only see it that way than we aren't really involved in the same discussion.

One's ability to discern good and evil has no effect on their sexual orientation.

Edited July 18, 2013 by rockpond

[canard78]

I understand all of that. I'm simply saying that if Adam and Eve had chosen to not partake of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and yet still had sexual relations with each other, the eggs in Eve's womb would have been fertilized by Adam's semen and a child would have been the result... if not in every case, in at least some cases when they had sexual relations with each other. Adam and Eve were still a man and woman before they fell, don't cha know, and certain things happen when a man and woman have sexual relations with each other.

So do you think the Book of Mormon is in error? It's really simple:

"2 Nep 2:23... if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen... he would have remained in the garden of Eden... And they would have had no children... they would have remained in a state of innocence"

What part of "they would have had no children" leaves any room for "if they'd not taken the fruit eventually they'd have figured out what this thing and that thing do."

There is no room in the "most correct" book for children in the garden. Do you have any scriptural reference to back up your position?

[LordUther]

While that is certainly a beautiful sentiment I don't think that we can really put ourselves into the heart of someone who is homosexual. I don't think it's possible to truly contemplate how you might feel when faced with a life a celibacy and loneliness.

I can tell you it's tough, really tough. Especially after having tasted of the forbidden fruit. It's not just the physical aspect either, but when your raised in a culture like the LDS culture where your taught from an early age that mans purpose is to find that eternal partner, to seek that loving companionship. That to be alone is incomplete, to realise that you're going to have to give up all hope of ever achieving that dream lives you a little empty inside.

I have a RM friend who tried to reactivate me on his mission that I'm still in touch with who believes that when the Bible talks of those who are called to a life of celibacy are called to a higher calling, that it's talking about homosexuals and he believes that only the strongest spirits are given this challenge. I don't know if he's right but I know that I am going to need strength to get through this, and I pray Heavenly Father will give me the strength when I am lacking.

[Ahab]

Sexual orientation is about far more than the desire for sexual relations.

Not really, or at least that's what we're talking about when we refer to someone as either gay or lesbian. Men can be very effeminate and women can be very tomboyish (if that's a workd) while still being what we would call heterosexual, so a person's "sexual orientation" is all about which sex they would prefer to be with, sexually. Men can hang around men practically all the time, at least with their spare time, and still not have any what we could refer to as homosexual urges.

If you only see it that way than we aren't really involved in the same discussion.

Then what are you talking about?

One's ability to discern good and evil has no effect on their sexual orientation.

I know, because people can do what is not good for them even if they know it's not good. I was saying that things are either good or evil regardless of whether or not anyone likes to do what is evil.

[Ahab]

So do you think the Book of Mormon is in error? It's really simple:

"2 Nep 2:23... if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen... he would have remained in the garden of Eden... And they would have had no children... they would have remained in a state of innocence"

What part of "they would have had no children" leaves any room for "if they'd not taken the fruit eventually they'd have figured out what this thing and that thing do."

There is no room in the "most correct" book for children in the garden. Do you have any scriptural reference to back up your position?

I'm thinking in terms of their bodies having the power to create children together through sexual relations, realizing that Adam had the body of a man (not just a little boy) and Eve had the body of a woman (not just a little girl) and thus Eve had eggs which if Adam had fertilzed with his sperm would have resulted in children. It's the birds and the bees, Biology 101. It could very well be that they wouldn't have been able to figure out how to do that with their "things" had they not gained the knowledge of good and evil, but they still had the bodies to do it, and they were still intelligent persons, even if they didn't know the difference between good and evil.

[rockpond]

I can tell you it's tough, really tough. Especially after having tasted of the forbidden fruit. It's not just the physical aspect either, but when your raised in a culture like the LDS culture where your taught from an early age that mans purpose is to find that eternal partner, to seek that loving companionship. That to be alone is incomplete, to realise that you're going to have to give up all hope of ever achieving that dream lives you a little empty inside.

I have a RM friend who tried to reactivate me on his mission that I'm still in touch with who believes that when the Bible talks of those who are called to a life of celibacy are called to a higher calling, that it's talking about homosexuals and he believes that only the strongest spirits are given this challenge. I don't know if he's right but I know that I am going to need strength to get through this, and I pray Heavenly Father will give me the strength when I am lacking.

I wish you the best on your journey and honor your for making such a difficult choice.

[rockpond]

Not really, or at least that's what we're talking about when we refer to someone as either gay or lesbian. Men can be very effeminate and women can be very tomboyish (if that's a workd) while still being what we would call heterosexual, so a person's "sexual orientation" is all about which sex they would prefer to be with, sexually. Men can hang around men practically all the time, at least with their spare time, and still not have any what we could refer to as homosexual urges.

Then what are you talking about?

I know, because people can do what is not good for them even if they know it's not good. I was saying that things are either good or evil regardless of whether or not anyone likes to do what is evil.

Sexual orientation goes beyond the desire for "sexual relations" and is independent of one's level of masculinity or femininity.

It has to do with the gender of where one's heart and mind and soul leads them to feel complete and loved. Who they imagine themselves with when they hear a romantic song or watch a romantic movie. It's those feelings that differentiate between my best guy friend and my wife... she isn't my wife just because I want sexual relations with her or because she is feminine. It goes way beyond that.

[canard78]

I'm thinking in terms of their bodies having the power to create children together through sexual relations, realizing that Adam had the body of a man (not just a little boy) and Eve had the body of a woman (not just a little girl) and thus Eve had eggs which if Adam had fertilzed with his sperm would have resulted in children. It's the birds and the bees, Biology 101. It could very well be that they wouldn't have been able to figure out how to do that with their "things" had they not gained the knowledge of good and evil, but they still had the bodies to do it, and they were still intelligent persons, even if they didn't know the difference between good and evil.

One more time:

2 Nep 2:23:

If Adam had not transgressed > he would not have fallen > he would have remained in the garden of Eden > they would have had no children > they would have remained in a state of innocence

>they would have had no children

>they would have had no children

>they would have had no children

[Ahab]

One more time:

2 Nep 2:23:

If Adam had not transgressed > he would not have fallen > he would have remained in the garden of Eden > they would have had no children > they would have remained in a state of innocence

>they would have had no children

>they would have had no children

>they would have had no children

I understood you. Do you understand the point I was making. They still had the bodies to do it.

[bluebell]

Could you provide the reference that you are thinking of?

1 Cor. 11:11